I don't get what you're asking here. If enough people think the same way as the politician running for office, no matter how inflammatory or backwards their remarks are, then they can run and win. The only times I can see this not happening is if their remarks advocated violence or hate crimes against specific groups rather than solely exclusion, as most countries have laws to prosecute you if you're actively found to be doing this (afaik.)

Do you not see that a political party may feel embarrassed by a candidate who would discriminate in such a way and therefore be justified in not endorsing a candidate? This case only a few weeks ago demonstrates that it is not only offensive and discriminatory, but also illegal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/03/no_room_at_the_inn.html

That's what I'm saying, though... If the 'party' as a whole supports the bigoted view, then they wouldn't be embarrassed, they'd be proud. Given the story link, it seems the main focus might be "are candidates allowed to advocate items that are currently against the law?" and this is where it gets tricky. If someone is running on a ticket of legalizing marijuana, should their candidacy be illegal? If someone wants to run in the US with a promise to repeal health reform, are they trying to tear down our established government? The point of politics is for people to run with new ideas that question how things currently are. No one ever runs on a ticket of non-change (even if they are, that's not the promise they advertise.)

You and I might consider his message to be incredibly backwards, but it's still people's right to represent what they believe in, bigoted though they may be.

I think to an extent we are at crossed purposes. I agree, free speech is an important value of a stable democracy. But I am merely saying that if a political party feels that a view is bigoted and offensive I feel like that is acceptable. I feel that if that person wants to run as an independent or join another of our political parties that would support him I feel that is within his rights. For example, I would stand by the British National Parties right to run and speak freely (I presume from your examplet you are an American so just in case you are not aware of the BNP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party), but I would feel that such extreme views would be a justifiable basis for more moderate parties to drop a candidate.But I also feel though that if you want to change the law (whether for better or worse), the current law still has to be respected. If a candidate believes in legalizing marijuana they are free to do that, but if caught doing marijuana that is a different story. That politician is not merely seeking to change the law, but ignoring the current law. Again just as the BNP has had to change it membership policies to allow racial minorities to become members, even though they are opposed to it. Within politics I feel that a politician must uphold the law no matter what.

I feel ya on this one. Advocating ignoring the law versus changing the law falls into two separate categories. For most purposes any mainstream political party would drop a candidate who advocated committing crimes instead of advocating for the legalization of those same actions.

I think the problem is arising between your title and the actual article. This man isn't being excluded from running for parliament, he has been excluded from his party. If Obama wanted to run as a Republican there's no way the RNC would allow that... and there's no reason why they should be forced to. There are always other parties and/or you can run as an independent.

No it's not ,everyone has their right to their views be they religious or just a view on people being gay . I am sure most gay people would deny people the right to have sex with animals, but there are many people worldwide that think it is their right. So how do you sort this out ...stop identifying people with their sexual orientation. But then the gay community would not be able to throw their sexuality into peoples faces and argue that they have to accept it , even if it is against their beliefs.